So I was wondering, the general consensus from RET supporters seems to revolve around the lack of empirical evidence, such as photographs or video depicting the Earth from space or clearly showing the Ice Wall or what's beyond it.

So my question is this; Is anyone planning to send up a probe or similar to photograph or film the Earth from space?

Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common. It does nothing to help convince the RET brigade.

I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence. Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment. And, as both sides of the debate have shown time and time again, it's only good evidence until it doesn't support their stance.

Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common. It does nothing to help convince the RET brigade.

I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence. Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment. And, as both sides of the debate have shown time and time again, it's only good evidence until it doesn't support their stance.

Quite a strange, non-linear statement I'm not really following. Granted, it could just be me.

Let's break it down:

"Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common."

Do you mean there are many images of the seemingly un-climbable, insurmountable Antarctic 'Ice Wall' that is proposed by FE lore? Or do you mean, "Yes there are many images of walls made of ice kind of everywhere around the earth at certain times of he year"?

If you mean the former, then it appears you would be putting stock into said images, of which, they don't "help convince the RET brigade", as you call it. Thereby rendering "I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence." moot. I'm not sure how you could have it both ways.

If you mean the latter, then yes, I agree, there are many walls of ice around the planet. Cool.

Lastly, "Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment." Back to Markjo's point, essentially, the output of my own senses and an experiment may be photo evidence. If photos are out as empirical evidence, what is in?

If you mean the former, then it appears you would be putting stock into said images, of which, they don't "help convince the RET brigade", as you call it.

No, it doesn't. If you asked me why there aren't any pictures of Super Mario online, I'd point out that there are plenty of them. It does not follow that I believe these pictures do anything to prove Super Mario's existence in the corporeal world. The same goes for Luke Skywalker and Nelson Mandela.

Lastly, "Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment." Back to Markjo's point, essentially, the output of my own senses and an experiment may be photo evidence. If photos are out as empirical evidence, what is in?

The RE mindset is obsessed with colonising the minds of others. It isn't enough that you've established the truth for yourself, you must make sure that others comply. The idea that others' epistemology may differ from yours is simply inadmissible. That is the failure of this mindset.

Empirical evidence is experiential, and therefore not persuasive. It is not the photograph you took, but the things you should be observing while you were dicking about with a camera. In your experiments, these experiences are not for me. They're for you.

It isn't enough that you've established the truth for yourself, you must make sure that others comply. The idea that others' epistemology may differ from yours is simply inadmissible. That is the failure of this mindset.

No, the REers merely disagree with you, and post the evidence of such, in the same way that the FEers started the whole thing by setting up this website, and posting the Wiki/Sacred Text/etc. The same way that the FEers post videos on YouTube, Facebook and such. RE simply responds with disagreement and posts evidence to contradict FE.

Empirical evidence is experiential, and therefore not persuasive. It is not the photograph you took, but the things you should be observing while you were dicking about with a camera. In your experiments, these experiences are not for me. They're for you.

So, this essentially boils down to;

"The tree doesn't fall in the forest unless I see it fall"

The lumberjack can tell you how many trees he felled, he can show you the before and after photos of his work, but you don't believe it unless you've been to the forest yourself? For you, it's just a 'maybe' unless you see it for yourself?

You have to, in your daily/weekly/yearly life, take people at their word for hundreds, if not thousands of things. Why is this topic the exception, where you won't?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

So is the FE mindset, isn't it? Why else would a society and associated website such as this exist?

To provide a space for debate and discussion, first and foremost. Also, to offer a home for those of less popular viewpoints, one where they're not constantly assaulted for daring to think differently. It is the very opposite of your colonial efforts. I can see why that would be uncomfortable to someone who's never known anything different.

Your example, of course, is also intentionally flawed. The question here isn't how many trees a lumberjack chopped down. The question is whether trees can be felled, and maybe some specifics of how that happens. Observing this is superior to staring at photos.

Your example, of course, is also intentionally flawed. The question here isn't how many trees a lumberjack chopped down. The question is whether trees can be felled, and maybe some specifics of how that happens. Observing this is superior to staring at photos.

Sure, personal experience is good, but sometimes DIY is just not practical. For example, exploring the deepest parts of the ocean is something that requires highly specialized training and equipment that is far beyond the means of most people. Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

What repeatable empirical evidence contradicts, or introduces considerable doubt, about the validity of photographs from earth observing satellites or the personal observations of over 500 astronauts?

Look out your window.

'It looks flat' and 'Laser experiments' are pretty much it. Everything else is about finding a way to make observation fit the idea of a flat Earth, not observation conclusively showing a flat Earth.

I have personally performed accurate measurements of the respective altitudes of both the sun and moon over the surface of the earth and both measurements objectively state the measurements provided by round textbooks is false.

What repeatable empirical evidence contradicts, or introduces considerable doubt, about the validity of photographs from earth observing satellites or the personal observations of over 500 astronauts?

You already know FES's position on the shape of the Earth pretty well, markjo. Please don't waste our time.

This isn't about FES's position on the shape of the earth. This is about FES's position on determining the validity of evidence, especially evidence that conflicts with your position. Even mainstream RET science is constantly presented with evidence that conflicts with the status quo. What says a lot about FES and mainstream science is how they deal with such conflicting evidence.

Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?

What repeatable empirical evidence contradicts, or introduces considerable doubt, about the validity of photographs from earth observing satellites or the personal observations of over 500 astronauts?

Look out your window.

At what, in particular? And once that has been looked at, what do you think it tells us?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

I have personally performed accurate measurements of the respective altitudes of both the sun and moon over the surface of the earth and both measurements objectively state the measurements provided by round textbooks is false.

... and where is your experimental method, and results, recorded? Which measurements in which texts were you comparing them to?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

I have personally performed accurate measurements of the respective altitudes of both the sun and moon over the surface of the earth and both measurements objectively state the measurements provided by round textbooks is false.

Are you referring to your 1700 mile and a 10' pole math problem? If so, then I seriously doubt that you personally measured out the 1700 miles. Also, the 5600 mile height conflicts with the 3000 mile height that is generally accepted by FET.